The US Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a landmark 6-3 ruling in favor of a Rastafarian man who was denied a job because of his dreadlocks, significantly broadening religious accommodation protections under federal employment law. The decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, held that employers must accommodate religious practices unless they can prove doing so would cause an “undue hardship” on their business, a standard that now applies to all aspects of employment, including hiring.
Case Background
The case involved Gerald Coleman, a practicing Rastafarian who applied for a security guard position at a private prison management company in Georgia. Coleman, whose faith requires him to keep his hair uncut and worn in dreadlocks, was told during the interview that the company's grooming policy prohibited dreadlocks. When he refused to cut his hair, the job offer was rescinded. Coleman sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion.
A lower court had ruled against Coleman, citing a previous Supreme Court decision that allowed employers to deny accommodations that impose more than a “de minimis” cost. The Supreme Court's new ruling overturns that precedent, replacing it with a stricter “undue hardship” standard borrowed from the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Ruling
Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority that the “de minimis” test was too lenient and failed to protect workers' religious liberties. The new standard requires employers to show that a requested accommodation would result in “significant difficulty or expense” to the business. The ruling applies to all types of religious practices, including grooming, dress, and observance of holy days.
“Title VII does not permit employers to treat religious practices as second-class rights,” Gorsuch wrote. “An employee’s religious observance must be accommodated unless it truly burdens the employer’s operations.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the new standard could impose excessive costs on businesses and lead to more litigation. “The majority has rewritten Title VII to favor religious objectors over all other workplace interests,” Sotomayor wrote.
Impact and Reactions
The decision is expected to have wide-ranging implications for employers across the country, particularly those with strict grooming or dress codes. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Coleman, approximately 85% of Fortune 500 companies have some form of grooming policy that could conflict with religious practices.
Coleman said in a statement: “I am grateful that the Supreme Court has recognized that my faith should not be a barrier to earning a living. This ruling means that no one should have to choose between their religion and their job.”
Civil rights groups praised the decision as a victory for religious freedom. “This ruling restores the original intent of Title VII: to protect workers from discrimination,” said Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. However, business groups expressed concern. The US Chamber of Commerce warned that the new standard could lead to increased compliance costs and legal uncertainty for employers.
Legal Context
The case marks the second major religious liberty ruling from the Supreme Court this term. In April, the court sided with a Christian postal worker who sought to avoid working on Sundays. Together, the decisions signal a robust expansion of religious accommodation rights in the workplace.
The ruling does not specify what constitutes “significant difficulty or expense,” leaving that to lower courts to determine on a case-by-case basis. Factors may include the size of the employer, the nature of the accommodation, and the impact on other employees.
